Roderos 1 Ma. Via Jucille Roderos Mr. Max Pulan Jr.

En 101 8 Dec 2011 A commentary on the two articles The two articles focus mainly on commentaries on journalism and literature, the first one target more on the lifestyle/feature or entertainment aspect and the second one focuses more on literary works particularly on Filipino literature (novels). In the first article written by Holifena, different facts, observations and opinions were stated about journalism in this case about front page news headlines and feature articles, ads and showbiz news in the lifestyle section. The writer explicitly stated that if the front pages were guilty of sensationalism or inaccurate reporting, the lifestyle articles are in turn guilty of commercialism and more lax journalistic standards. The writer questions the credibility and accuracy of the both types of new articles and clearly she uses the emotional aspect of an argument to support her claim. She (Holifena) uses experience, both personal and second-hand, as foundations for her claim. According to her, just like news articles, feature articles or showbiz news should also be supported by evidences like additional interviews to make it more credible and more editorial. For instance, when the writer stated that uncritical and unsophisticated reader believes everything that he reads and that he will likely to become a victim of the endorsement or propagandas crafted by shrewd PR cum columnist and that the reader doesnt really know what is happening behind the scenes, she appeals to the emotion or experience of the reader who experienced the situation. She further states that what a writer (columnist or journalist) writes about something he endorses or features is somehow idealistic and that it does not show or tell the readers what exactly is the realistic

Roderos 2 side of it. The readers being the victim try it out pay for it and only to realize that they didnt get what they bargained for. She (Holifena) tries to convince the readers that what other writers wrote as feature are actually endorsements and she backs it up with experience of her readers. According to her these articles are not credible enough to pass editorial standard because they lack a sturdy framework. She also states that these are articles not intended for purposes of information but for commercial purposes or getting a freebie and that only the journalist benefits from it and not the readers who in turn get the worse end of the deal. Logically, for an article to become credible and more truthful especially to the readers there had to be some evidence supporting that claim. For example, if an article features something about a paradise hideaway where one can unwind and relax, an interview with someone who had been there and enjoyed the experience can add more to the credibility of the featured article and can possibly make the writer of that article more reputable, since it is the information is supported by evidence. However if it were to be based on emotion or experience of the person, people can have different experience depending on the circumstances. One may have a good experience while the other may have the one and experiences or emotion cannot be generalized. An argument anchored on experience might not have a sturdy framework since experience differ from one person to the other.

Roderos 3 In the second article by Abola, this article targets a rant made by person regarding a Filipino literary work (novel) made by a national artist. The said person stated that the novel was hard to understand and she preferred it written in English. Abola rebutted this persons statement and she used her authority as a literature teacher, which was stated in her (Abola) article, to support her claim. Although she was no stranger to complaints regarding incomprehensible texts in her classroom, she was disappointed at the persons statement regarding the literary work made by the national artist. This person has stated that: What is so objectionable about use of simple language in literature? Is it naturally elitist and meant to be appreciated only by a few and Abola rebutted, questioning the persons authority to dismiss Villa and Hernandez further stating the shame of not being able to read and comprehend masterpieces by national artists which are already a part of the Filipino culture. Abola clearly supports his claim with use of her authority as a literature teacher even thought she is not an expert when comes to the use of our native tongue. She also reasons that texts are hard to read and understand simply because the writers did not write their masterpieces for the current generation and that the writers did not think of writing these for the future generations in their time being. To further strengthen the support of her claim, she also used the issue of nationality in her argument. She stated that products of our culture may help persons grow as a Filipino and therefore should not neglect these works. The writers arguments are somehow reasonable since these are works of Filipino and National Artists at that matter. These are considered as masterpieces and are therefore a legacy of our culture. It is just proper that Filipinos should at least try to read and comprehend these masterpieces. In a way we can appreciate products of our culture

Roderos 4 However the argument supported by ethical appeal is not quite appropriate to reinforce the claim. In fact the claim was supported by a kind of a fallacy (strawperson) wherein the writer degrades the argument of the person so that it would be easier to refute it. Furthermore the writer stated that he was not expert with the Filipino language therefore her authority regarding her claim is rather questionable